Justification by works and not by faith alone: James bluntly says it

[alwayswill]

From Luther

More later.
Jon

Commentary on Galatians

…If faith lacks love it is not true faith

I think we all agree that a dead (v17) useless (v20) Same as the demons (19) faith does not save…

God does not give the gift of a dead, useless, demon-like faith.

Faith that is dead is not from God
Faith that is useless is not from God
Faith that is a demon-like faith is not from God

Faith in self is not from God
Faith in your good works is not from God.
Faith in Oprah and Dr. Phil is not from God…
faith in idols is not from God
faith in false gods is not from God
Faith in a god you created is not from God
even your faith in your own faith is not from God

A false, useless, dead faith that is the spiritual equivalent of no faith (ie faithlessness) is not from God

 

[GodsGrace154]

The Catholic teaching firmly states that justification is a process. I’m on my phone so can’t easily copy selections of texts like you are.

Maybe you are getting initial justification and progressive justification mixed up. Prior to justification, we can do nothing. We are without God’s grace. We get into a state of justification, ordinarily, when we repent, believe, and are baptized. In general, we receive God’s grace when we choose to align ourselves with his will, by the prompting of his grace. Works of any kind do not get us into a state of justification. Paul is clear “for grace you have been saved… Not of your own doing.” Once in a state of justification, we can grow in that state, since the Catholic understands justification to be an actual, inner change, where we become partakers of the divine nature, become a “new creation,” and have the Spirit of God and virtue of charity in us. If justification is like this, which I believe the New Testsment and early church teaches, as do the Orthodox churches who are just as ancient, then it naturally follows that justification/salvation is a process and not a single event.

Faith alone DOES NOT justify it is the virtue of faith (traditionally defined) is alone. Paul and the NT in various places distinguishes faith, hope, and love. The Protestant (or certain kinds) may well say that intellectual assent alone does not justify. GOOD: The Catholic agrees. But the issue then becomes - do good works justify at all? NO! – IF* we use the usual Protestant understanding that justification is a single and initial event in the life of the believer. But Catholics believe in a progressive justification. In the Catholic view, (1) justification is not so sharply distinguished from sanctification and (2), good works actually contribute to our relationship with God.

Good works strengthen us, make us grow closer to God in quality. It’s not as if there is a certain number of good works you have to do for salvation. Good works in that sense are not necessary. But just as Abraham was justified by his good work, as James clearly says, so is the believer justified in good works done with God’s grace: That is, our progressive relationship with God is increased.

The above is all correct and I wonder why you have questions.
I find that the Protestant explanation of Justification and Sanctification makes much more sense than the Catholic explanation, since in this case J and S happen at the same time -a t baptism. This really cannot be possible.

We are Justified when we come to believe, and, as you correctly stated, not by intellectual assent - God always looks at the heart. Yes, even satan believes. We must believe with our whole heart, mind and soul. Mathew 22:37
Believe, trust, agree with, follow, IOW we must be disciples.
So we are Justified immediately upon believing and accepting God. This is a free gift. We are converted and now walk TOWARD God, and our nature will be changed and our minds transformed. Romans 12:2
It is as though we NEVER SINNED. We are new and fresh.

We are Sanctified by our WORKS. Sanctification is a life-long process and is different for everyone. Some can do more, some can do less, but DO we must. This is how we become holy (set aside for service to God). 1 Corinthians 1:2 Acts 20:32
Always, of course, with the help of the Holy Spirit 1 Peter 1:2

So J is a gift from God and requires nothing from man but faith.
S requires man’s cooperation to be completed.

I’m sorry to say that the Catholic doctrine combines the two in a way that makes it very difficult to distinguish one from the other. Also, how does a baby being baptized receive Sanctification if he cannot cooperate in the work? I just think the Protestant explanation is much easier to understand.

GG

 

[fhansen]

So we are Justified immediately upon believing and accepting God. This is a free gift. We are converted and now walk TOWARD God, and our nature will be changed and our minds transformed. Romans 12:2
It is as though we NEVER SINNED. We are new and fresh.

And yet many Protestants insist that there* is* no change in us-that there is only an *imputation *of righteousness. Becoming as one who has NEVER SINNED would imply more than forgiveness and imputation.

We are Sanctified by our WORKS. Sanctification is a life-long process and is different for everyone. Some can do more, some can do less, but DO we must.

But are there consequences then for not DOING? According to Matt 25:31-46 we’ll be judged on those very works.

 

[JonNC]

And yet many Protestants insist that there* is* no change in us-that there is only an *imputation *of righteousness. Becoming as one who has NEVER SINNED would imply more than forgiveness and imputation.

But are there consequences then for not DOING? According to Matt 25:31-46 we’ll be judged on those very works.

For the Lutheran there is. From our confessions:

 Accordingly, we also believe, teach, and confess that when it is said: The regenerate do good works from a free spirit, this is not to be understood as though it is at the option of the regenerate man to do or to forbear doing good when he wishes, and that he can nevertheless retain faith if he intentionally perseveres in sins.

Jon

 

[adamhovey1988]

I’ve read the Bible all the way through, James says no such thing. Faith and works is a both and not an either or. Romans 2:6 says that we will be judged according to our deeds.

 

[GodsGrace154]

And yet many Protestants insist that there* is* no change in us-that there is only an *imputation *of righteousness. Becoming as one who has NEVER SINNED would imply more than forgiveness and imputation.

Many like to kid themselves, don’t they?
The hyper-faith movement says that faith is all that is necessary. A new movement. It’s unfortunate that there is such a split in the Body of Christ.
The bible is clear:
Mathew 7:16-23
It’s speaking of false prophets. It’s speaking of a tree producing good fruit or it will be cut down and thrown into the fire. It’s pretty clear. Some like to do as they will and find scripture to support their view. Let me assure you that they are exhorted to change by other Protestants, theirs is incorrect doctrine.

As far as becoming as one who never sinned: Just if i cation. Just if i’d never sinned. That’s a good way to remember it. You start with a clean slate - this is true of Catholic baptism too. But then, alas, sin we do, and confess we must.

But are there consequences then for not DOING? According to Matt 25:31-46 we’ll be judged on those very works.

There are consequences. But Protestants understand them to be loss of rewards and not loss of salvation. For loss of salvation to occur one must turn from God and abandon Him. Then there are those who think salvation can never be lost, another fallacy: Eternal Security.

I see in scripture that Jesus was far stricter than Paul ever was. I trust Jesus. The letter of James explains all: Faith without works is dead.
We leave the final decision to the Lord and His good judgement. In the meantime it would be wise to do as He instructed.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

Peter J Kreeft Catholic Christianity Chapter 8 Section 16.

Protestants and Catholics agree that faith is necessary for Salvation … But the Church insists that good works are necessary too. This means the works of love. … St James clearly teaches that “faith by itself, if it has no works, is dead”. And some of Christ’s parables teach that our salvation depends on our charity.

The difference between the Catholic and the Protestant theologies of forgiveness are as follows:

a. Luther thought forgiveness was only external and legal (“forensic”). Catholic theology teaches that it actually changes our souls.

b. Catholic theology teaches that justification and sanctification, faith and works, are not separated, as Luther thought. Rather “justification is not only the remission of sins, but also the sanctification and renewal of the interior man” (CCC 1989).

Darryl B:
This is for those reading along.
I also like JonNC’s post no. 39 on the commentary by Luther on Galatians.

I’d also like to say that mainline Protestant denominations also believe in works. Works cannot be separated from faith. In fact, some protestant churches go so far as to become very legalistic with many rules and regulations - far beyond what Jesus spoke of. For instance, some don’t allow make-up. (may it never be!). Jesus always spoke of the internal and the heart and the opposite of that would go to what I understand to be legalism - although our external look should compare to our internal condition.

Protestants also believe that our soul condition is changed when we come to know the Lord. Romans 12:2

I’ve already explained why I like the protestant method of explaining Justification and Sanctification as two separate steps and will not repeat.

GG

 

[Darryl_B]

Peter Kreeft also has a talk on youtube where he effectively states that Catholics and Protestants are essentially saying the same thing but in different ways.

I believe this to be, as I have already stated, that the Catholic position is that faith and works cannot be separated from each other, the one relies on the other, impacts the other, witnesses the other. The Protestant position is that faith and works are separated in the sense that (especially in the case of the negative) works (unrighteousness, disobedience) don’t impact on the level of faith and hence justification.

Justification should also be understood in terms of its opposite. Disodedience is unrighteousness is unjustified.

 

[GodsGrace154]

Peter Kreeft also has a talk on youtube where he effectively states that Catholics and Protestants are essentially saying the same thing but in different ways.

I believe this to be, as I have already stated, that the Catholic position is that faith and works cannot be separated from each other, the one relies on the other, impacts the other, witnesses the other. The Protestant position is that faith and works are separated in the sense that (especially in the case of the negative) works (unrighteousness, disobedience) don’t impact on the level of faith and hence justification.

Justification should also be understood in terms of its opposite. Disodedience is unrighteousness is unjustified.

Darryl
Yeah. We have a problem with this and it’s precisely because of how Catholic theology explains and mixes up Justification and Sanctification.

I’ve always wondered why they insist on doing it this way. It’ almost as if the reformation separated the two and so Catholics want to keep them more together. I used to know what the church Fathers taught about this but have forgotten. I looked quickly for Aquinas, who is my favorite, but found only Justification and have not enough time for a good study. Here is part of what I found:

"IN SUM :: Justification is the movement of a sinner from a state of interior injustice known as sin to a state of interior justice that expels such sin, caused instantaneously when the grace of God is infused and causes the sinner to accept grace by their free will and freely despise sin and turn from loving it and towards God and loving God.

The justice brought about by this grace in the interior of a human soul is such that the human intellect or reason is directed toward God to apprehend God as last end, and directs the human will to submit to the human intellect and therefore love God as last end or ultimate good. Justification is by faith because the will only loves what it first apprehends as a fitting object of love by the intellect or reason, thus faith has a structural priority over charity (love for God) inasmuch as the intellect has a structural priority over the will.

Though justification is brought about by faith and is the sinner’s first movement toward God inasmuch as faith is the first effect of grace due to its structural priority, it more especially concerns or consists in charity because justice is especially concerned with the good, and the good is especially the object of the will, and charity is the will’s proper act (love) elevated and perfected."

It is also Protestant belief that faith and works cannot be separated. Justification just means that you come to God FIRST (are saved, regenerated, converted) THEN you go into sanctification, which will be the works which increase faith.

Negative works DO impact on your faith life. However, they cannot impact on your justification. Negative works are sin - you have confession to take care of sin. Negative works impact your relationship with God, your growth, but you’re still saved, no?
This sounds wrong to you?

GG

 

[Darryl_B]

Negative works DO impact on your faith life. However, they cannot impact on your justification. Negative works are sin - you have confession to take care of sin. Negative works impact your relationship with God, your growth, but you’re still saved, no?
This sounds wrong to you?

GG

Yes. That does sound wrong to me. Being in a state of Grace is something that can be lost. It unfortunately lead to the once saved always saved school of thought. It was just a logical progression of reasoning.

It is funny you should mention confession because that is the exact thing that Martin Luther was motivated to remove (and hence also purgatory). The entire origin of Martin Luthers “alone” is an examination of sin not love. Works of sin not works of Love.

 

[guanophore]

The above is all correct and I wonder why you have questions.
I find that the Protestant explanation of Justification and Sanctification makes much more sense than the Catholic explanation, since in this case J and S happen at the same time -a t baptism. This really cannot be possible.

We are Justified when we come to believe, and, as you correctly stated, not by intellectual assent - God always looks at the heart. Yes, even satan believes. We must believe with our whole heart, mind and soul. Mathew 22:37
Believe, trust, agree with, follow, IOW we must be disciples.
So we are Justified immediately upon believing and accepting God. This is a free gift. We are converted and now walk TOWARD God, and our nature will be changed and our minds transformed. Romans 12:2
It is as though we NEVER SINNED. We are new and fresh.

We are Sanctified by our WORKS. Sanctification is a life-long process and is different for everyone. Some can do more, some can do less, but DO we must. This is how we become holy (set aside for service to God). 1 Corinthians 1:2 Acts 20:32
Always, of course, with the help of the Holy Spirit 1 Peter 1:2

So J is a gift from God and requires nothing from man but faith.
S requires man’s cooperation to be completed.

I’m sorry to say that the Catholic doctrine combines the two in a way that makes it very difficult to distinguish one from the other. Also, how does a baby being baptized receive Sanctification if he cannot cooperate in the work? I just think the Protestant explanation is much easier to understand.

GG

The Church has always taught that baptism washes away all sins, original and personal. If one dies immediately after baptism, there is no need for further sanctification. This is why some in the early church put off being baptized. They wanted a straight ticket.

 

[JonNC]

The Church has always taught that baptism washes away all sins, original and personal. If one dies immediately after baptism, there is no need for further sanctification. This is why some in the early church put off being baptized. They wanted a straight ticket.

Dangerous gamble indeed

Jon

 

[guanophore]

Darryl
Yeah. We have a problem with this and it’s precisely because of how Catholic theology explains and mixes up Justification and Sanctification.

I’ve always wondered why they insist on doing it this way. It’ almost as if the reformation separated the two and so Catholics want to keep them more together. I used to know what the church Fathers taught about this but have forgotten. I looked quickly for Aquinas, who is my favorite, but found only Justification and have not enough time for a good study. Here is part of what I found:

"IN SUM :: Justification is the movement of a sinner from a state of interior injustice known as sin to a state of interior justice that expels such sin, caused instantaneously when the grace of God is infused and causes the sinner to accept grace by their free will and freely despise sin and turn from loving it and towards God and loving God.

The justice brought about by this grace in the interior of a human soul is such that the human intellect or reason is directed toward God to apprehend God as last end, and directs the human will to submit to the human intellect and therefore love God as last end or ultimate good. Justification is by faith because the will only loves what it first apprehends as a fitting object of love by the intellect or reason, thus faith has a structural priority over charity (love for God) inasmuch as the intellect has a structural priority over the will.

Though justification is brought about by faith and is the sinner’s first movement toward God inasmuch as faith is the first effect of grace due to its structural priority, it more especially concerns or consists in charity because justice is especially concerned with the good, and the good is especially the object of the will, and charity is the will’s proper act (love) elevated and perfected."

It is also Protestant belief that faith and works cannot be separated. Justification just means that you come to God FIRST (are saved, regenerated, converted) THEN you go into sanctification, which will be the works which increase faith.

Negative works DO impact on your faith life. However, they cannot impact on your justification. Negative works are sin - you have confession to take care of sin. Negative works impact your relationship with God, your growth, but you’re still saved, no?
This sounds wrong to you?

GG

The apostles taught that there are some aspects of salvation that are completed immediately, some that are being worked out, and some that will not be completed until the end of this life.

Salvation is not something that occurs once in time for all time. This is a modern innovation.

 

[GodsGrace154]

Yes. That does sound wrong to me. Being in a state of Grace is something that can be lost. It unfortunately lead to the once saved always saved school of thought. It was just a logical progression of reasoning.

It is funny you should mention confession because that is the exact thing that Martin Luther was motivated to remove (and hence also purgatory). The entire origin of Martin Luthers “alone” is an examination of sin not love. Works of sin not works of Love.

Being in a state of grace is something that can be lost.

THIS is a big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.
WHAT is it that makes you not be in a state of grace?

If my husband and I have an argument, are we divorced?

Is sin the only requirement for NOT being in a state of grace?

Are we not safe in Jesus’ arms?

Having said all that, I’ll say that I also think OSAS is a lot of nonsense. There are plenty of verses to prove this. The logical progression is that heresies have always been in the churches and that people love to do what they want to instead of what God wants them to.

I’m not sure what you mean by “works of sin”. ML had many complaints, which seem right to me and which the Pope ignored, thus the split. He did understand that we had to repent (change course) more than confess sins. Even the Catholic church today teaches that there is to be an internal change and not just external confession.

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

The apostles taught that there are some aspects of salvation that are completed immediately, some that are being worked out, and some that will not be completed until the end of this life.

Salvation is not something that occurs once in time for all time. This is a modern innovation.

Are you speaking of Justification, Sanctificaton, Glorification?
If so, I agree.

Salvation is for NOW. I know that I am saved NOW. I do not know if I will be at the end of my life. Eternal Security is not biblical and is a modern invention, as you stated.

“The Lord IS my shepherd…”

IS

Present tense.

GG

 

[Abu]

GodsGrace154 #54
Salvation is for NOW. I know that I am saved NOW.

Such a howler contradicts St Paul for by His Crucifixion, death and Resurrection, Jesus has REDEEMED us. Learn the facts from St Paul. So long as one realises that we are not “saved” in this life, but we are redeemed – and we have to listen to St Paul in that what is lacking is our co-operation. That is precisely why St Paul teaches: “Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling.” (Philippians 2:12). We don’t achieve salvation in one fell swoop by accepting Christ as our personal saviour as some are misled to feel. St Paul knows very well what he is teaching.

Further, all who are saved are saved through Christ’s Catholic Church whether they realise it or not.

 

[Darryl_B]

Being in a state of grace is something that can be lost.

THIS is a big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.
WHAT is it that makes you not be in a state of grace?

If my husband and I have an argument, are we divorced?

Wrong analogy. If I were to commit adultery … tell me about the relationship.

 

[GodsGrace154]

The Church has always taught that baptism washes away all sins, original and personal. If one dies immediately after baptism, there is no need for further sanctification. This is why some in the early church put off being baptized. They wanted a straight ticket.

That’s funny.
BUT how does one know when one will die??!!

Won’t work!

GG

 

[GodsGrace154]

Wrong analogy. If I were to commit adultery … tell me about the relationship.

I’m sorry Darryl.
I don’t get it !

You mean sinning is like committing adultery?

GG

 

[guanophore]

 Being in a state of grace is something that can be lost.

THIS is a big difference between Catholicism and Protestantism.
WHAT is it that makes you not be in a state of grace?

You are right. This is one of the biggest differences. Catholics believe that the nature of sin has not changed “this side of the cross”, where Calvin taught that sin can no longer separate us from God once we are “saved”. Most modern day evangelicals confuse God’s love, from which we cannot be separated, with salvation, which we can. Sin still separates us from God, and even a person who has been “in Christ” can fail to continue to be “in Christ”.

If my husband and I have an argument, are we divorced?

I suppose that depends upon the content of the argument, and what agreements were made when it ended.

Is sin the only requirement for NOT being in a state of grace?

I think you are asking is there anything ELSE that removes us from a state of grace, except sin? None of which I am aware.

Are we not safe in Jesus’ arms?

Of course we are, and He will not lose any the Father has given Him, and no one can snatch us from His hand. But we can JUMP OUT.

I’m not sure what you mean by “works of sin”. ML had many complaints, which seem right to me and which the Pope ignored, thus the split. He did understand that we had to repent (change course) more than confess sins. Even the Catholic church today teaches that there is to be an internal change and not just external confession.

This is not a teaching of “today”. It has always been the teaching of the Church. I agree with you, Luther had some valid complaints, and the Pope had an arrogant response.

Are you speaking of Justification, Sanctificaton, Glorification?
If so, I agree
GG

Yes.

You mean sinning is like committing adultery?

GG

Yes, much better analogy than a marital argument. And this is a common metaphor used for Israel abandoning the Covenant in the OT.